Man, that's so much worse than the Utopia that Karl Marx told me about. We should totally start a violent revolution so we can escape today's conditions even if "experts" say things are better now than ever.

We’re saying the fact that people are celebrating a billionaire paying for some peoples college is a fucked up system, especially when other first world countries have managed to create education systems that don’t often require going deep into debt.

That's true in a sense, but I'd still say it's a poor comparison, because one is about charity and the other isn't. Neoliberals love to subtly change public discourse to be one about charity and it's voluntary nature, but fundamentally the idea of higher taxes for the rich has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with responsibility.

Yes but relying on the wealthy to help voluntarily isn't enough. There are actual doctors, and lawyers deep in debt with no way out. Half of the world's wealth is held by 2,000 people, while other people die because they literally can't feed themselves.

How is that fair? The technology to help these people exists. These are solvable problems that haven't been fixed because you can't make money off of it.

I'm not certain whether we can create a system in which all the world's welfare and social structures are funded voluntarily. It's a debate worth having, and I would love to see things made as voluntary as possible.

I'd also like to point out that global poverty is at record lows. Nowadays when people can't feed themselves it's almost always because of political problems (dictatorships, war, etc...) rather than inability to afford food.

Firstly, I'm against the concept of devaluing a college education by making it free. Secondly, I'm against people thinking their anger and resentment towards the rich is somehow a competent fiscal policy.

There are definitely things that the rich do that the average person should be angry about- but they do so by manipulating a bloated government system that is designed to benefit them. Trim to government down to its most basic functions, and then the rich will have no bureaucracy to hide behind - only then can we see an effective and (more importantly) organic change in wealth distribution.

Your logic makes zero sense. It wouldn't devalue it would make it the standard similar to how a high school education is. If you want to go beyond a four year degree you can and it would open more doors and add value to your degree. It's not that complicated and having a higher educated population is more valuable than the value you think you would be losing. There could be somebody who could change the world by curing a disease as an example that might not be able to further their education strictly because of financial reasons and that is where the value loss is.

How is making it “the standard similar to high school education” not devaluing it? If a Bachelors degree was as common as a high school diploma, the added of value of getting a Bachelors would be less for each person

The value in a degree is directly related to what the field of study is. The fallacy was in telling everyone, “Go get a degree and you’ll get a job.” The reality is that not all degrees are created equal in terms of job opportunities, wage potential, job security. College shouldn’t be “focusing on my passion” but more “preparing for my future career.”
More degrees does not equal a more educated populace if everyone gets a degree in english, history and psychology. Not that those degrees are useless, but there is a MUCH lower demand and security with those fields as opposed to STEM and medical fields.

The argument is that making it a standard would devalue, it which may or may not be true. It may be true because if everyone has it it’s less of a selling point which is essentially supply and demand. But if it enriches society as much as you think it’d essentially make everyone wealthier so the people with it wouldn’t be as far above the people without it in terms of earnings potential, but everyone would earn more. So it’s not really a black and white issue

I would rather people be able to get a decent job without having to spend 4 years getting a degree that is ultimately useless.

People put too much value on a college degree when there are plenty of jobs that are necessary to society without the need for 4 years of useless training. Medical technicians and tradesmen, for example, are at an all time low in the US, and both are capable of netting $30 k a year.

If making a college degree affordable makes it not valuable, you are blatantly admitting that it serves nothing other than an obstacle to prevent people from lifting themselves from poverty. Making it affordable doesn't mean that people will be able to just get a degree whenever, they still aren't easy to get.

Your second point simply isn't true. If it was, billionaires wouldn't be lobbying for a smaller government. The countries the most income equality are countries without a large wealthy population, and the countries with the highest taxes.

Firstly, a degree is not a magical giving tree that instantly produces hot meals - at the end of the day, it's a piece of paper that ultimately means nothing unless the job you've been trained for is in demand. If anything, I would prefer trade schools being made free, because the US desperately needs new tradespeople.

Secondly, your knee jerk aversion to billionaires isn't a valid point. There are billionaires who are human beings, and genuinely see that the system is broken - just like there are billionaires that make their bread and butter off of the taxpayer's money. I am curious to see your statistics about your final point about wealth distribution.